(Reuters) - The State Department has secretly funded Syrian opposition
groups, according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, The
Washington Post reported on Monday.

The cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6
million since 2006 to a group of Syrian exiles to operate a London-based
satellite channel, Barada TV, and finance activities inside Syria, the
Post said.

Barada TV began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations
to cover the mass protests in Syria that began last month as part of a
long-standing campaign to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad the Post said.

The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under
President George W. Bush after political ties with Damascus were frozen
in 2005, the newspaper said.

The financial backing has continued under President Barack Obama, even
as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad, the Post
said. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for
the first time in six years.

The article said it is unclear whether the United States was still
funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set
aside at least through September 2010.

An uprising against Assad's authoritarian rule have spread across large
parts of the country. Rights groups put the death toll at more than 200
people. Syrian authorities blame the violence on armed gangs.

The previously undisclosed cables show that U.S. Embassy officials in
Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian
intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs, The
Washington Post said.

An April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus
at the time read Syrian authorities "would undoubtedly view any U.S.
funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting
regime change," the Post reported.

"A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programing that supports anti-
factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive," the
cable said.

The Post said the State Department declined to comment on the
authenticity of the cables or answer questions about its funding of
Barada TV.

The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in
April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in
Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country's
autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights groups say scores of
people have been killed by Assad's security forces since the
demonstrations began March 18; Syria has blamed the violence on "armed
gangs."

Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and
Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S.
diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as
$6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and
finance other activities inside Syria. The channel is named after the
Barada River, which courses through the heart of Damascus, the Syrian
capital.

The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under
President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with
Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President
Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with
Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for
the first time in six years.

The cables, provided by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that
U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they
learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about
U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State
Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the
Obama administration's rapprochement with Damascus at risk.

Syrian authorities "would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to
illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,"
read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in
Damascus at the time. "A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored
programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and
outside Syria, may prove productive," the cable said.

It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian
opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least
through September 2010. While some of that money has also supported
programs and dissidents inside Syria, The Washington Post is withholding
certain names and program details at the request of the State
Department, which said disclosure could endanger the recipients'
personal safety.

Syria, a police state, has been ruled by Assad since 2000, when he took
power after his father's death. Although the White House has condemned
the killing of protesters in Syria, it has not explicitly called for his
ouster.

The State Department declined to comment on the authenticity of the
cables or answer questions about its funding of Barada TV.

Tamara Wittes, a deputy assistant secretary of state who oversees the
democracy and human rights portfolio in the Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs, said the State Department does not endorse political parties or
movements.

"We back a set of principles," she said. There are a lot of
organizations in Syria and other countries that are seeking changes from
their government. That’s an agenda that we believe in and were going to
support.â

The State Department often funds programs around the world that promote
democratic ideals and human rights, but it usually draws the line at
giving money to political opposition groups.

In February 2006, when relations with Damascus were at a nadir, the Bush
administration announced that it would award $5 million in grants to
accelerate the work of reformers in Syria.

But no dissidents inside Syria were willing to take the money, for fear
it would lead to their arrest or execution for treason, according to a
2006 cable from the U.S. Embassy, which reported that no bona fide
opposition member will be courageous enough to accept funding.

Around the same time, Syrian exiles in Europe founded the Movement for
Justice and Development. The group, which is banned in Syria, openly
advocates for Assads removal. U.S. cables describe its leaders as
liberal, moderate Islamists who are former members of the Muslim
Brotherhood.

Barada TV

It is unclear when the group began to receive U.S. funds, but cables
show U.S. officials in 2007 raised the idea of helping to start an
anti-Assad satellite channel.

People involved with the group and with Barada TV, however, would not
acknowledge taking money from the U.S. government.

I'm not aware of anything like that, Malik al-Abdeh, Barada TVs news
director, said in a brief telephone interview from London.

Abdeh said the channel receives money from independent Syrian
businessmen whom he declined to name. He also said there was no
connection between Barada TV and the Movement for Justice and
Development, although he confirmed that he serves on the political
groups board. The board is chaired by his brother, Anas.

If your purpose is to smear Barada TV, I dont want to continue this
conversation. Malik al-Abdeh said. Thats all Im going to give you.

Other dissidents said that Barada TV has a growing audience in Syria but
that its viewer share is tiny compared with other independent satellite
news channels such as al-Jazeera and BBC Arabic. Although Barada TV
broadcasts 24 hours a day, many of its programs are reruns. Some of the
mainstay shows are Towards Change a panel discussion about current
events, and Step, a program produced by a Syrian dissident group based
in the United States.

Syrian rebel city welcomes US ambassador with roses
Syrian government criticises Robert Ford for meeting 'saboteurs' in Hama
and conspiring to undermine regime

Martin Chulov in Beirut

Friday 8 July 2011

Thousands flooded the streets of the rebellious city of Hama for a
second Friday, denouncing a government sanctioned conference set to
begin this weekend – and throwing red roses at a visiting US ambassador.
The unannounced visit byAmbassador Robert Ford acted as a lightning rod
for activists, but drew a stern rebuke from the Syrian government, which
accused Ford of meeting with saboteurs and conspiring to undermine the
regime. There were reports of eight killed by security forces and more
than 40 wounded nationwide. Anecdotal accounts suggested the protesters
numbered at least 200,000. Violence was reported in the nearby city of
Homs, as well as Qaboon in central Damascus and Meedan.

Ford is understood to have left the besieged city before protests
started. His convoy was allowed through the Syrian army checkpoints on
the outskirts of the city and along the road to the capital.

However government officials remain furious with the first public act of
solidarity by a resident diplomat since the uprising began in March.
Ford and other senior ambassadors had previously been criticised by some
Syrian opposition leaders and by US lawmakers from remaining in Syria
while the government crackdown against demonstrators continued.

The Obama administration has repeatedly called for an end to the brutal
crackdown against demonstrators and has imposed extra sanctions on
senior regime figures. However, it has not called for Assad to stand
down – a position that some critics say has given Assad little incentive
to stop the widespread use of military forces to quell dissent.

Ford's convoy was surrounded by Hama residents earlier today, some of
whom threw red roses. Others waved olive branches as the convoy slowly
made its way through the streets of Syria's fourth city in a highly
symbolic victory, which was captured on cameras and quickly uploaded to
YouTube. ...

United Nations: Amnesty International has led calls for decisive UN
Security Council action on Syria’s deadly crackdown against protests
after UN investigators said crimes against humanity had been committed.

Amnesty, yesterday, called on the 15-member Security Council, which has
yet to pass a resolution on the Syrian crackdown, to refer the case to
the International Criminal Court, order an arms embargo and freeze the
assets of President Bashar al-Assad and his associates.

“Continued inaction by the Security Council will not only allow the
commission with impunity of more human rights violations in Syria, but
embolden present and future violators,” said an Amnesty statement.

A UN human rights commission said Monday that Syrian security forces had
committed crimes against humanity
following orders from the “highest levels” of government.

Human Rights Watch said the UN Human Rights Council must now refer the
Syria case to the UN Security Council.

Amnesty, yesterday, called on the 15-member Security Council, which has
yet to pass a resolution on the Syrian crackdown, to refer the case to
the International Criminal Court, order an arms embargo and freeze the
assets of President Bashar al-Assad and his associates. AFP

“The Human Rights Council should take the necessary steps to support
implementation of the commission’s recommendations, including calling on
the UN Security Council to impose targeted sanctions and refer the
situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court,” said HRW
specialist Philippe Dam.

Last month, China and Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution, drawn
up by France, Britain, Germany and Portugal, condemning the Syria
violence. Russia, China and other members of the council said the
western nations only wanted “regime change.”

Arab League sanctions against Syria and the new UN report are likely to
increase pressure for new action at the council however.

Germany’s UN ambassador Peter Wittig called the Arab League sanctions
“historic” and said, “I think the council here cannot stand idly by
regarding what the regional organisation has said so strongly. We think
the council should take up that decision and endorse it and reinforce it.”

He said informal talks on possible action would soon start.

US ambassador Susan Rice said the UN rights report highlighted the
“ruthless, depraved campaign” being conducted by Assad.

She said the United States welcomes the Arab League efforts and added:
“The world can now clearly see what
boundaries the Assad regime is willing to cross to retain its grip on
power.”

Suzanne Nossel, former assistant to Richard Holbrooke in his capacity as
UN Ambassador and currently Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Assistant for
International Organization Affairs, has been selected as the new
Executive Director of Amnesty International USA. In the discharge of her
duties at the State Department, she diligently exploited human rights to
benefit imperial ambitions.

Ms. Nossel had previously worked for Human Rights Watch, as well as for
Bertelsmann Media Worldwide and the Wall Street Journal as Vice
President of Strategy and Operations.

The AI-USA Board of Directors deemed that Suzanne Nossel’s commitment to
the Clinton and Obama administrations was sufficient proof of her
competence and decided not to hold a grudge against her for the crimes
committed in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, etc.

Ms. Nossel has launched several campaigns against Iran, Libya and Syria.
In recent months she made a name for herself by misinforming the Human
Rights Council in Geneva with a view to getting the resolution
authorizing the war on Libya adopted by the Security Council. Ms.
Nossel’s allegations have since been debunked.

The U.S. and Germany say the United Nations Security Council must
respond to Syria's deadly crackdown on protesters after U.N.
investigators detailed grave rights abuses they say were ordered by the
“highest levels” of President Bashar al-Assad's government.

The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said Monday that
with the Arab League's recent decision to impose sanctions on Syria and
the “now well-documented atrocities” outlined in the U.N. report, it is
“time to revisit” possible action by the Security Council.

A U.N. commission investigating allegations of human rights violations
in Syria accused government troops of “summary execution; arbitrary
arrest; enforced disappearance; torture, including sexual violence; as
well as violations of children's rights.”

The report released Monday said Syrian forces have killed 256 children,
including a 2-year-old girl, and that “torture was applied equally to
adults and children.”

It cited numerous testimonies indicating that “boys were subjected to
sexual torture in places of detention in front of adult men.”

The group's findings will now go to the Human Rights Council and the
U.N. General Assembly, which will decide what to do next.

Meanwhile, the U.S. and the European Union Monday urged Syria to “end
violence immediately” and allow a peaceful and democratic transition of
government. A joint statement also called on Damascus to grant human
rights observers and foreign journalists access to the country.

The EU said it plans to impose additional sanctions on Mr. Assad's
embattled government. EU foreign ministers will vote Thursday on
proposals to further restrict trade and economic dealings with Damascus.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said Monday the Arab League had
declared “economic war” against Syria when it launched broad trade
sanctions against it.

His remarks were the first official reaction to measures imposed by the
Arab League on Sunday after Syria refused to accept a deadline allowing
league observers to monitor the government's response to the eight-month
uprising.

The United Nations says more than 3,500 people have been killed since
March in connection with the uprising.

My name is Brother Nathanael Kapner I'm a "Street Evangelist". I grew up
as a Jew I'm now an Orthodox Christian. I wish to warn how Zionist Jews
are destroying Christianity throughout the Worldhttp://www.realjewnews.com/

IN A DISPLAY OF DEFIANCE, Vladimir Putin sent Russian Patriarch Kirill
on a ‘religious’ mission to Syria on November 15 2011.

“God will protect the Syrian people from bloodshed,” declared the
Patriarch after touchdown in Damascus in preparation for his meeting
with Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad.

The Patriarch’s visit was a clear signal to the Jewish-controlled West
that Putin will checkmate Zionist schemes to bisect Syria into pro and
anti Assad entities.

For on November 28 2011, a group of military officers from NATO and the
Persian Gulf established an operational command at Turkey’s city of
Iskenderun on the border of North Syria with plans for military
intervention.

This Nato contingent hails from the US, France, Canada, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with Turkish officers providing
liaison. View Entire Story Here.

Mimicking the Jewish war of words against Assad, (Jew Senator Lieberman
recently called Assad a “thug” when he demanded —as he did with Gadhafi—
that “Assad must go”), Turkey’s prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, (a
secret Jew), turned on his former friend by calling Assad, “a new Hitler.”

SUPERPOWER FACE-OFF

IN YET A FURTHER DEFIANCE of Jewry’s designs on Syria, on December 1st
2011, Putin delivered to Syria the first of 72 Yakhont supersonic
anti-ship missiles designed to break any sea blockade imposed on Syria.

Putin also sent to Assad the first of the advanced Pantsir-1 anti-air
missile that has the capacity to break a no-fly zone against most types
of aircraft should one be imposed by the war mongering Jews and their
puppets. (Talmudic Jew, Senator Joseph Lieberman, was the first to
demand a no-fly zone over Syria.)

And the Yakhont missile can target US and Israeli vessels blockading
Syria’s shores at a distance of 300 kilometers.

The nuclear-armed US carrier strike force, the USS George HW Bush,
arrived in the Mediterranean bordering Syrian waters on November 23 2011
in the wake of the three Russian warships anchored earlier opposite
Tartus which established a command post in the Syrian port.

The Russian warships will be augmented by Russia’s class aircraft
carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is due to harbor by December 10.

The Kuznetsov carrier and its accompanying strike vessels will enter the
very same Syrian offshore waters as the USS Bush and the US Sixth Fleet,
which is permanently posted in the Mediterranean. Indeed, a face-off
between the superpowers is now in the makings.

COLD WAR MAKES A COMEBACK

BACK TO THE FUTURE vis-a-vis the Syrian crisis brings the Cold War of
yesteryear into the present with the fear of a possible launching of
World War 3.

A potential conflagration between the two superpowers is reaching
frightening levels in the Mediterranean with vessels of both the US and
Russia maneuvering for battle positions.

Precipitated by the Jewish-run US State Department’s decision on
November 23 2011 to sever its treaty with Russia in exchanging
information on troop deployments, Moscow is now engaged in drawing a
line around Assad’s presidential palace in Damascus.

Agitating for a US war on Syria are, of course, the usual suspects:
Jewish neocons William Kristol and Robert Kagan of the Foreign Policy
Initiative, a reincarnation of the Project for the New American Century
which lobbied for the genocide of the Iraqi people via promoting the lie
of Saddam Hussein’s so-called “weapons of mass destruction.”

In Kristol’s and Kagan’s paper, “Towards a Post-Assad Syria,” (with
their blood lust still running afresh from their Jewish pens), the two
diehard neocons demanded that Obama institute “crippling sanctions” on
the Assad regime, provide assistance to Syrian opposition groups, and
impose a no-fly zone over Syria.

But Jewry has now met its match. Its nemesis, Vladimir Putin, is warning
the Jewish led-by-the-nose US and NATO that they will not be allowed to
repeat their feat in Libya of overthrowing Muammar Gadhafi by ousting
Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad.

Underlining Putin’s determination to protect Syria from Zionist
aggression, Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, warned the Zionist
West against any outside military intervention:

“Armed groups that maintain contacts with a host of Western countries
are provoking the unrest. Everyone knows this.” View Entire Story Here.

Indeed, it is a KNOWN FACT that Israel and its colony, the Zionist
States of America, have been undermining Assad’s regime by equipping
‘protesters’ with arms and money.

“THE RUSSIANS AREN’T SUCKERS,” Brzezinski once remarked with regard to
Moscow’s opposition to the Jewish Lobby’s war mongering schemes in the
Middle East.

And Vladimir Putin, who has the ability to leave the Jewish-controlled
West gasping for air, can land the deadliest sucker-punch of them all.

(8) Making a stand: Russian Navy heads for Syria; US Navy is already there

As Russia’s lone aircraft carrier prepares to steam from the Arctic to a
Russian-operated naval base in Syria, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is
on the attack, warning against outside military intervention in Syria’s
slow motion civil war.

“It’s not so much the authorities, but armed groups that are provoking
the unrest,” Lavrov told reporters this week. He urged all parties to
pressure Syria’s political players to forego violence saying: “This
applies to the armed groups that work in Syria and maintain contacts
with a host of Western countries and a host of Arab states. Everyone
knows this.”

After being on the losing sides in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Yemen,
Russia is making a stand in Syria. The Kremlin hopes the Arab Spring
will wither into the Arab Winter. On Monday, the day after the Arab
League voted to impose sanctions on Syria, Lavrov told Arab ambassadors
in Moscow that internal problems “should be resolved peacefully through
national dialogue... and without outside interference.”

The meeting seemed to be a warm up for an expected veto by Russia if the
Arab League asks the UN Security Council to approve sanctions. Russia
has a lot at stake in Syria. Despite the talk of peace, most of these
stakes are military. For over half a century, Moscow has been the main
arms supplier to Syria.

The Kremlin’s stake in Syria stretches all the way back to the Suez
Crisis of 1956, when Moscow signed a military aid pact with Damascus.
Relations further tightened after the bloodless coup of 1970 that
started the dynasty of the Assads, leaders of the nation’s Alawite
minority. A few months later, Moscow signed an agreement for the
installation of a naval supply and maintenance base at Tartus, a port in
the heartland of the Alawites.

During the Soviet era, Tartus was a key base for the Soviet Navy’s
Mediterranean Fleet. After the Soviet collapse, this fleet was disbanded
and Russian naval power largely receded from the Mediterranean. Then in
2008, when Russia was flush with oil money, Moscow started to renovate
the Tartus base. The stated goal was to again make it Russia’s window on
the Mediterranean. According to Izvestia, 600 Russian technicians now
work in Tartus. Next week, the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is to
start steaming from the Arctic toward Tartus. The Kuznetsov is to be
joined by two other Russian Navy vessels. Russia’s show of naval force
comes one week after an American naval task force, led by the USS George
H.W. Bush, the U.S. Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, arrived off Syria’s
coast.

If gunboat diplomacy is the cards, Russia has an advantage on land.
Hundreds of active duty Syrian officers have trained at Russian military
academies. Russia-trained Alawite officers could attempt a palace coup,
according to one scenario explored by Nour Malas in Tuesday’s Wall
Street Journal. Malas quotes an Alawite officer from exile in Jordan:
“Once they get the green light from Russia, the (Alawite officers) may
well go ahead.”

But it is unlikely that Syria’s Sunni majority would accept a revolving
door of Alawite minority rule.

In another scenario, Syria would disintegrate into a loose ethnic
federation. In this case, the Alawites would retreat to their coastal
stronghold, an area that was a mini-state during the French Mandate
period of 1920-46. Sunnis would control Damascus and Aleppo. On the
Alawitecontrolled coast, Russian basing rights would endure intact.

Yet it is unlikely that Sunni rulers in Damascus would settle for
running a landlocked, rump state.

Moscow is talking peace — but is starting to brandish its big stick. On
Sunday, within hours of the Arab League vote, a Russian Navy General
Staff officer briefed Izvestia about the deployment of the aircraft
carrier to Syrian waters. As the Kremlin moves its military pieces on
the chessboard, at stake is one of Russia’s two remaining major Arab
allies on the Mediterranean. If Syria goes, only Algeria remains from
the glory years of Soviet diplomacy.

James Brooke (Twitter: @VOA_Moscow) is the Moscow bureau chief for Voice
of America. To view all “Russia Watch” posts, go to voanews.com The
views expressed in this article are the author’s own, and not
necessarily those of The Moscow News.

By whitewashing the Libyan rebels and demonising the Gaddafi regime did
the leading US intellectual Noam Chomsky help facilitate an imperialist
invasion? In a wide-ranging interview with Chomsky, Dan Glazebrook asks him

This was a difficult interview for me. It was Noam Chomsky who first
opened my eyes to the basic neo-colonial structure of the world and to
the role of the corporate media in both disguising and legitimising this
structure.

Chomsky has consistently demonstrated how, ever since the end of World
War II, military regimes have been imposed on the Third World by the US
and its European allies with an ascribed role to keep wages low (and
thus investment opportunities high) by wiping out communists, trade
unionists, and anyone else deemed a potential threat to empire. He has
been at the forefront of exposing the lies and real motives behind the
aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia in recent years, and
against Central America and Southeast Asia before that. But on Libya, in
my opinion, he has been terrible.

Don't get me wrong: now the conquest is nearly over, Chomsky can be
quite forthright in his denunciation of it, as he makes clear during the
interview. "Right now, at this moment, NATO is bombing a home base of
the largest tribe in Libya," he tells me. "It's not getting reported
much, but if you read the Red Cross reports they're describing a
horrifying humanitarian crisis in the city that's under attack, with
hospitals collapsing, no drugs, people dying, people fleeing on foot
into the desert to try to get away from it and so on. That's happening
under the NATO mandate of protecting civilians."

What bothers me is that this was precisely the mandate that Chomsky
supported.

US General Wesley Clark, NATO commander during the bombing of Serbia,
revealed on US television seven years ago that the Pentagon had drawn up
a "hit list" in 2001 of seven states they wanted to "take out" within
five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Thanks
to the Iraqi and Afghan resistance, the plan has been delayed -- but
clearly not abandoned. We should, therefore, have been fully expecting
the invasion of Libya. ( Here you see Wesley Clark about these 7 countries: 7 countries. J V.)

Given former US president George Bush's cack-handedness over winning
global support for the war on Iraq, and Obama's declared commitment to
multilateralism and "soft power", we should have been expecting this
invasion to have been meticulously planned in order to give it a veneer
of legitimacy. Given the CIA's growing fondness for instigating "colour
revolutions" to cause headaches for governments it dislikes, we should
have been expecting something similar as part of the build-up to the
invasion in Libya. And given Obama's close working relationship with the
Clintons, we might have expected this invasion to follow the highly
successful pattern established by former US president Bill Clinton in
Kosovo: cajoling rebel movements on the ground into making violent
provocations against the state, and then screaming genocide at the
state's response in order to terrorise world opinion into supporting
intervention.

In other words, we should have seen it coming, and prominent and widely
respected intellectuals such as Chomsky should have used their platform
to publicise Clark's revelations, to warn of the coming aggression, and
to draw attention to the racist and sectarian nature of the "rebel
movements" the US and British governments have traditionally employed to
topple non-compliant governments. Chomsky certainly did not need
reminding of the unhinged atrocities of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the
Nicaraguan Contras, or the Afghan Northern Alliance. Indeed, it was he
who helped alert the world to many of them.

But Chomsky did not use his platform to make these points. Instead, in
an interview with the BBC one month into the rebellion -- and,
crucially, just four days before the passing of UN Security Council 1973
and the beginning of the NATO blitzkrieg -- he chose to characterise the
rebellion as "wonderful". Elsewhere he referred to the takeover of the
eastern Libyan city of Benghazi by racist gangs as "liberation" and to
the rebellion as "initially non-violent".

In an interview with the BBC, he even claimed that "Libya is the one
place [in North Africa] where there was a very violent state reaction
repressing the popular uprisings," a claim so divorced from the truth it
is hard to know where to begin. Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak
is currently being prosecuted for the murder of 850 protesters, whereas,
according to Amnesty International, only 110 deaths could be confirmed
in Benghazi before NATO operations began -- and this included
pro-government people killed by rebel militia. What really makes Libya
exceptional in the North African Arab Spring is that it was the only
country in which the rebellion was armed, violent, and openly aimed at
facilitating a foreign invasion.

Now that Amnesty has confirmed that the Libyan rebels have been using
violence since the very start and have been rounding up and executing
black Libyans and African migrants in droves ever since, I began the
interview by asking Chomsky whether he now regrets his initial public
support for them.

He shrugs. "No. I'm sure what Amnesty International reports is correct
-- that there were armed elements among them, but notice they didn't say
that the rebellion was an armed rebellion. In fact, the large majority
were probably people like us [sic], middle-class opponents of Gaddafi.
It was mostly an unarmed uprising. It turned into a violent uprising,
and the killings you are describing indeed are going on, but it didn't
start like that. As soon as it became a civil war, then that happened."

However, in fact it did start like that. The true colours of the rebels
were made clear on the second day of the rebellion, 18 February, when
they rounded up and executed a group of 50 African migrant workers in
the town of Bayda. A week later, a terrified eyewitness told the BBC of
another 70 or 80 migrant workers who had been cut to pieces in front of
his eyes by rebel forces. These incidents -- and many others like them
-- had made clear the racist character of the rebel militias well before
Chomsky's BBC interview on 15 March. But Chomsky rejects this. "These
things were absolutely not clear, and they weren't reported. And even
afterwards when they were reported, they were not talking about the
uprising. They were talking about an element within it."

This may be how Chomsky sees it, but both incidents were carried by
mainstream media outlets like the BBC, US National Public Radio and the
British newspaper The Guardian at the time. Admittedly, they were hidden
away behind reams of anti-Gaddafi bile and justified with the usual
pretext of the migrants being "suspected mercenaries", yet Chomsky's
expertise in analysing media should have been able to see through that.
Moreover, the forcing out last month of the entire population of the
majority black Libyan town of Tawarga by Misrata militias with names
like "the brigade for purging black skins" was recently given the
official blessing of Libyan National Transition Council (NTC) President
Mahmoud Jibril. To present these racial crimes as some kind of
insignificant element seems wilfully disingenuous.

But Chomsky continues to stick to his guns. "You're talking about what
happened after the civil war took place and the NATO intervention,
whereas I'm not. Two points, which I'll repeat. First of all, it wasn't
known, and secondly it was a very small part of the uprising. The
uprising was carried out by an overwhelmingly middle-class, non-violent
opposition. We now know there was an armed element and that quickly
became prominent after the civil war started. But it didn't have to, so
if that second intervention hadn't taken place, it might not have turned
out that way."

Chomsky characterises the NATO intervention as having two parts. The
initial intervention, authorised by the UN Security Council to prevent a
massacre in Benghazi, he argues was legitimate. But the "second"
intervention, in which the triumvirate of the US, Britain and France
acted as an air force for the militias of Misrata and Benghazi in their
conquest of the rest of the country, was wrong and illegal.

"We should remember that there were two interventions, not one, by NATO.
One of them lasted about five minutes. That's the one that was taken
under UN Security Resolution 1973, which called for a no-fly zone over
Benghazi when there was the threat of a serious massacre there, along
with a longer-term mandate of protecting civilians. It lasted almost no
time, [as] almost immediately, not NATO but the three traditional
imperial powers of France, Britain and the United States carried out a
second intervention that had nothing to do with protecting civilians and
certainly wasn't a no-fly zone, but was rather about participating in a
rebel uprising, and that's the one we've been witnessing."

"It was almost isolated internationally. The African countries were
strongly opposed -- they called for negotiations and diplomacy from the
very beginning. The main independent countries -- the BRICS countries --
also opposed the second intervention and called for efforts at
negotiations and diplomacy. Even within NATO's limited participation,
outside of the triumvirate, in the Arab world, there was almost nothing:
Qatar sent a couple of planes, and Egypt, next door and very heavily
armed, didn't do a thing."

"Turkey held back for quite a while and finally participated weakly in
the triumvirate's operation. So it was a very isolated operation. It has
been claimed that it was carried out under an Arab League request, but
that's mostly fraud. First of all, the Arab League request was extremely
limited and only a minority participated -- just Saudi Arabia and the
Gulf states. They actually also issued a request for two no-fly zones --
one over Libya and the other over Gaza. We don't have to talk about what
happened to the second one."

On most of this we agree. My argument, however, is that it was always
painfully clear that Security Council Resolution 1973 was intended by
the triumvirate as a fig leaf for precisely the "second intervention"
Chomsky decries.

"It wasn't clear, even for those five minutes, that the imperial powers
accepted the resolution. It only became clear a couple of days later
when they started bombing in support of the rebels. And it didn't have
to happen. It could have been that world opinion, most of it -- the
BRICS, Africa, Turkey, and so on -- could have prevailed."

It seems bizarre and na--ïve for a man of Chomsky's insight to feign
surprise at the imperial powers using UN Resolution 1973 for their own
purposes in order to topple one of the governments on their hit list.
What else would they have used it for? It is also exasperating: if it
had been anyone else talking, I would have told them to read some Chomsky.

Chomsky would have told them that imperial powers don't act out of
humanitarian, but instead that they act out of totalitarian impulses and
to defend and extend their dominance of the world and its resources. He
would also have told them, I would have thought, not to expect those
powers to implement measures designed to save civilians, because they
would only take advantage of them and do the opposite.

However, on this occasion Chomsky seemed to be following a different
logic. Does Chomsky accept that his whitewashing of the rebels and
demonising of Gaddafi in the days and weeks before the invasion was
launched, may have helped to facilitate it?

"Of course I didn't whitewash the rebels. I said almost nothing about them.

The original interview took place before any of this -- it was in the
period when a decision had to be made about whether even to introduce a
UN resolution to call for a no-fly zone -- and incidentally I said after
that had passed that I thought that a case could be made for it, and I
would still say that today.

Yet, even after the British, French and US aggression in Libya had
become abundantly clear, Chomsky published another article on Libya on 5
April. By this time thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Libyans had
been killed by NATO bombs. This time Chomsky's piece opened by
criticising the British and American governments not for their
blitzkrieg but for their alleged support for Gaddafi "and his crimes".
Didn't this feed into the demonisation that justified and perpetuated
NATO's aggression?

"First of all, I don't accept your description. I wouldn't call it NATO
aggression, as it's more complex than that. The initial step -- the
first intervention, the five-minute one -- I think was justifiable.
There was a chance -- a significant chance -- of a very serious massacre
in Benghazi. Gaddafi had a horrible record of slaughtering people, and
that should be known -- but at that point, I think the proper reaction
should have been to tell the truth about what's happening."

I can't help wondering why the responsibility to "tell the truth about
what's happening" only applies to Libya. Should we not also tell the
truth about what's happening in the West? About its unquenchable thirst
for diminishing oil-and-gas reserves, for example, or about its fear of
an independent Africa, or its long track record of supporting and arming
brutal gangsters against governments it wants removed? Chomsky is
familiar enough with the examples. Should we not tell the truth about
the crisis currently enveloping the Western economic system and leading
its elites increasingly to rely on war-mongering to maintain their
crumbling dominance? Isn't all this actually a lot more pertinent to the
war on Libya than recounting the alleged crimes of Gaddafi from 20 years
ago?

Chomsky argued with US academic and activist James Petras in 2003 over
his condemnation of Cuba's arrest of several dozen US agents and
execution of three hijackers. Petras had argued then that "intellectuals
have a responsibility to distinguish between the defensive measures
taken by countries and peoples under imperial attack and the offensive
methods of imperial powers bent on conquest. It is the height of cant
and hypocrisy to engage in moral equivalences between the violence and
repression of imperial countries bent on conquest with that of Third
World countries under military and terrorist attack."

On the present occasion, Chomsky has done worse than this. Far from
drawing moral equivalences, he has simply airbrushed out of the picture
the crimes of NATO's Libyan allies, whilst amplifying and distorting the
defensive measures taken by Libya's government in dealing with an armed
and US-backed rebellion.

I remind Chomsky of his comment some years back that Libya was used as a
punch bag by US politicians to deflect public attention away from
domestic problems. "Yes, it was. But that doesn't mean that it was a
nice place."

[...] All the U.S. intellectuals (Chomsky, Zinn, Wallerstein etc…)
supported the U.S.-financed violent fundamentalist uprising in
Afghanistan against the Soviet-backed secular government in Afghanistan
– under the pretext that the Soviet Union “invaded” Afghanistan and the
fundamentalist fanatics entering the country from all over the world
were the “dissidents” defending “self-determination” – an admitted
propaganda ploy successfully executed by the boastful former National
Security Adviser, Zbig Bryzinski. Then and now prestigious intellectuals
brandish their past credentials as “critics” of U.S. foreign policy to
give credibility to their uninformed denunciation of alleged Cuban moral
transgressions, equating Cuba’s arrest of paid functionaries of the U.S.
State Department and the execution of three terrorist kidnapers with the
genocidal war crimes of U.S. imperialism. The practitioners of moral
equivalents apply a microscope to Cuba and a telescope to U.S. – which
gives them a certain acceptability among the liberal sectors of the empire.

What Pilger does not (cannot?) say is that the global MSM is owned and
controlled by the same people who own the global central banks - and
Wall St, and the City of London. They have a stranglehold on the minds
of the people. ...

On 22 May 2007, the Guardian’s front page announced:
"<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/22/iraq.topstories3> Iran’s
secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq." The writer,
Simon Tisdall, claimed that Iran had secret plans to defeat American
troops in Iraq, which included "forging ties with al-Qaeda elements."
The coming "showdown" was an Iranian plot to influence a vote in the US
Congress. Based entirely on briefings by anonymous US officials,
Tisdall’s "exclusive" rippled with lurid tales of Iran’s "murder cells"
and "daily acts of war against US and British forces." His 1,200 words
included just 20 for Iran’s flat denial.

It was a load of rubbish: in effect a Pentagon press release presented
as journalism and reminiscent of the notorious fiction that justified
the bloody invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among Tisdall’s sources were
"senior advisers" to General David Petraeus, the US military commander
who in 2006 described his strategy of waging a "war of perceptions …
conducted continuously through the news media."

The media war against Iran began in 1979 when the west’s placeman
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, a tyrant, was overthrown in a popular
Islamic revolution. The "loss" of Iran, which under the shah was
regarded as the "fourth pillar" of western control of the Middle East,
has never been forgiven in Washington and London.

Last month, the Guardian’s front page carried another "exclusive": "MoD
prepares to take part in US strikes against Iran." Again, anonymous
officials were quoted. This time the theme was the "threat" posed by the
prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The latest "evidence" was
warmed-over documents obtained from a laptop in 2004 by US intelligence
and passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Numerous
authorities have cast doubt on these suspected forgeries, including a
former IAEA chief weapons inspector. A US diplomatic cable released by
WikiLeaks describes the new head of the IAEA, Yukiuya Amano, as "solidly
in the US court" and "ready for prime time."

The Guardian’s 3 November "exclusive" and the speed with which its
propaganda spread across the media were also prime time. This is known
as "information dominance" by the media trainers at the Ministry of
Defense’s psyops (psychological warfare) establishment at Chicksands,
Bedfordshire, who share premises with the instructors of the
interrogation methods that have led to a public enquiry into British
military torture in Iraq. Disinformation and the barbarity of colonial
warfare have historically had much in common.

Having beckoned a criminal assault on Iran, the Guardian opined that
this "would of course be madness." Similar arse-covering was deployed
when Tony Blair, once a "mystical" hero in polite liberal circles,
plotted with George W. Bush and caused a bloodbath in Iraq. With Libya
recently dealt with ("It worked," said the Guardian), Iran is next, it
seems.

The role of respectable journalism in western state crimes — from Iraq
to Iran, Afghanistan to Libya — remains taboo. It is currently deflected
by the media theater of the Leveson enquiry into phone hacking, which
Daily Telegraph’s Benedict Brogan describes as "a useful stress test."
Blame Rupert Murdoch and the tabloids for everything and business can
continue as usual. As disturbing as the stories are from Lord Leveson’s
witness stand, they do not compare with the suffering of the countless
victims of journalism’s warmongering.

The lawyer Phil Shiner, who has forced a public inquiry into the British
military’s criminal behavior in Iraq, says that embedded journalism
provides the cover for the killing of "the hundreds of civilians killed
by British forces when they had custody of them, [often subjecting them]
to the most extraordinary, brutal things, involving sexual acts …
embedded journalism is never ever going to get close to hearing their
story." It is hardly surprising that the Ministry of Defense, in a
2000-page document leaked to WikiLeaks, describes investigative
journalists — journalists who do their job — as a "threat" greater than
terrorism.

In the week the Guardian published its "exclusive" about the Ministry of
Defense planning for an attack on Iran, General Sir David Richards,
Britain’s military chief, went on a secret visit to Israel, which is a
genuine nuclear weapons outlaw and exempt from media opprobrium.
Richards is a highly political general who, like Petraeus, has worked
the media to considerable advantage. No journalist in Britain revealed
that he went to Israel to discuss an attack on Iran.

Honorable exceptions aside — such as the tenacious work of the
Guardian’s Ian Cobain and Richard Norton-Taylor — our increasingly
militarized society is reflected in much of our media culture. Two of
Blair’s most important functionaries in his mendacious, blood-drenched
adventure in Iraq, Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell, enjoy a cozy
relationship with the liberal media, their opinions sought on worthy
subjects while the blood in Iraq never dries. For their vicarious
admirers, as Harold Pinter put it, the appalling consequences of their
actions "never happened."

On 24 November, International Day for the Elimination of Violence
Against Women, the feminist scholars Cynthia Cockburn and Ann Oakley
attacked what they called "certain widespread masculine traits and
behaviors." They demanded that the "culture of masculinity should be
addressed as a policy issue." Testosterone was the problem. They made no
mention of a system of rampant state violence that has rehabilitated
empire, creating 740,000 widows in Iraq and threatening whole societies,
from Iran to China. Is this not a "culture," too? Their limited though
not untypical indignation says much about how media-friendly identity
and issues politics distract from the systemic exploitation and war that
remain the primary source of violence against both women and men.

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary
film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's
top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and
the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger
came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger,"
wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy
truth. I salute him.

(12) Making Sense of Syria: Libya's model is the template - Stephen Lendman

Washington and other Western nations blame Syria. Its security forces,
in fact, confronted an armed insurrection. Conflict keeps raging unresolved.

Russia and China blocked America's (Western supported) Security Council
resolution. If passed, it would have been a first against Syria,
perhaps opening the way for greater conflict or war like against Libya.

"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of
armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decision, and it
may call upon (UN members) to apply such measures."

"These may include complete or partial interruption of economic
relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other
means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."

On October 4, New York Times writer Neil MacFarquhar headlined, "UN
Resolution on Syria Blocked by Russia and China," saying:

"Nine nations, including the United States and its Western allies voted
for the measure, while Brazil, India, South Africa and Lebanon abstained."

France's Gerard Araud called the veto "disdain(ful) for the legitimate
interests that have been fought for in Syria by protesters since March."

Britain's Mark Grant said vetoing the resolution "will be a great
disappointment to the people of Syria and the wider region that some
members of the council could not show their support for their struggle
for basic human rights."

Washington's Susan Rice said:

"Those who oppose this resolution and give cover to a brutal regime will
have to answer to the Syrian people - and, indeed, to people across the
region who are pursuing the same universal aspirations. The crisis in
Syria will stay before the security council and we will not rest until
this council rises to meet its responsibilities."

Russia's Vitaly Churkin and China's Li Boadong expressed concern about
the resolution's thinly veiled regime change scheme. Both were adamant
about Syria not becoming another Libya.

Churkin said it reflected a "philosophy of confrontation," knowing full
well how Britain, France, and especially Washington operate.

This evil troika's lawlessness is transparent and appalling.

Against Libya, Washington, Britain and France led NATO's killing
machine, turning the country into a charnel house. A peaceful country
lies ruined. Corpses pile up daily on others. Human misery levels are
horrific.

Libyans know their friends and foes. They understand supportive and
hostile nations. They despise imperial Washington and Western allies.

So do Syrians. They want no part of foreign intervention in their
internal affairs, especially if Washington, Britain, France, and Israel
are involved.

They know what happened to Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan awaits them if
NATO's "humanitarian intervention" targets them.

In December 2008, Susan Rice became UN ambassador. She was chosen for
supporting unilateral use of military force against any US target for
any reason or none at all.

She and other Obama war cabinet picks then and now represent extreme
imperial lawlessness, arrogance and hypocrisy.

She continues that tradition, supporting America's worst crimes of war
and against humanity, perhaps targeting Syria like Libya.

A rogue network of "think tanks, endowments, funds and foundations" are
involved. So are CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, and other
congressional funded groups. Internal figures are bribed to defect.

Other tactics are also used. They including enlisting support from human
rights organizations, corrupted NGOs and the UN. Major media scoundrels
support them and administration policy.

The clear message to targeted regimes is "go or be gone." End results
aim for "post-modern coup d'etat(s)."

A Syrian National Council (SNC) was established, similar to Libya's
puppet Transitional National Council (TNC).

Originally formed in 2005, it was revived on August 23, 2011 in
Istanbul, Turkey. It represents Western-backed internal opposition
elements against the rights and interests of most Syrians.

It called for a Libyan-style "no-fly zone" and foreign intervention. It
supplies intelligence to Washington and other Western nations. If
unconventional tactics fail, stepped up violence and war remain options.

Since early 2011, NATO countries used regional bases to provide
anti-regime support. Saudi Arabia and Lebanon's Saad al Hariri were
implicated in financing and arming insurgents. Israel, Jordan and Turkey
are also believed to be involved. ...

Western intervention fueled violence for regime change. Once initiated,
it's hard shutting it off. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies,
including the New York Times on its Syria page.

Ignoring a Western backed insurgency, it accused Assad of
"launching....a series of withering crackdowns, sending tanks into
restive cities as security forces opened fire on demonstrators."

"Syria's crackdown has been condemned internationally, as has Assad...."

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive
Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US
Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are
archived for easy listening.

Depending on which particular Middle Eastern or North African nation´s
Arab Spring Revolution one analyses, the final analysis will invariably
result in them being hybrid strategies of the Anglo American Empire. The
potential elements for hybridization of the subversions are The Afghan
Freedom Fighter Hybrid, (1) The El Salvador Death Squads Hybrid (2) ,
The Color Revolution Hybrid (3), and the Chechnyan Model (4), all of
which ... represent the executive functions of a rogue network for
covert or unconventional warfare by the Anglo American Empire; A network
of think tanks, endowments, funds and foundations, which are behind the
overt destabilization of targeted sovereign nations.

Their narratives in public policy and for public consumption are
deceptive and persuasive. Often they specifically target and co-opt
progressive thinkers, media and activists. The product is almost
invariably a post-modern coup d´etat. Depending on the chosen
hybridization and the resilience of government, social structures and
populations perceived need for reform, the product can be more, or less
overtly violent. The tactics can be so subtle , involving human rights
organizations and the United Nations (8), that they are difficult to
comprehend. However subtle they are, the message to the targeted
government is invariably “go or be gone“.

Studied in the light of U.S.-American training manuals for special
forces in Unconventional Warfare (9) (10) they are understood and
manifest the imminent dangers of a Superpower, that turned into a rouge
state. After the subversion of Libya developed into overt conflict under
the guise of sanctions on humanitarian grounds by U.N. Security Counsel
Resolution 1973 (11), one of the next targets is Syria that has been
aggressively attacked by means of diplomacy, U.S. (12) and E.U. (13)
sanctions, and insurgencies since spring 2011. After recently having
drawn a sharp line in the Syrian Sand, Russia and China vetoed U.N.
Sanctions on 05. October 2011 (14). To understand the Subversion of
Syria, it is necessary to understand U.S. Unconventional Warfare and how
it manifests in the National Counsel of Syria.

According to the narrative for public consumption and social engineering
of popular support for planned aggression, the National Counsel of Syria
was officially established at a meeting of members of Syrian “opposition
movements” in Turkey. On 15 September even Israeli Newspapers could not
blame Turkey for hosting the counsels meeting (ibid.). As in the case of
Libya´s Transitional National Counsel most of its members are anonymous,
but the few that are known by name are gravitating around the National
Endowment for Democracy and related rouge networks. Before presenting
the known members and their ties to the rouge network gravitating around
the National Endowment for Democracy, DIA, CIA etc., it is necessary
first to know the concept and strategy of U.S. Unconventional Warfare
with Special Forces. Away from the “Rambo” myth, to the reality of
subversion.

TC 18-01 SPECIAL FORCES UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE – 2010 (15)
Some of the first paragraphs in this Special Forces
Handbook read:

DISTRIBUTION RESTRICTION: Distribution authorized to U.S. Government
agencies and their contractors only to protect technical or operational
information from automatic dissemination under the International
Exchange Program or by other means. This determination was made on 1
August 2010. Other requests for this document
must be referred to Commander, United States Army John F. Kennedy
Special Warfare Center and School, ATTN: AOJK-DTD-SF, 2175 Reilly Road,
Stop A, Fort Bragg, NC 28310-5000.
DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure
of contents or reconstruction of the document.
FOREIGN DISCLOSURE RESTRICTION (FD 6): This publication has been
reviewed by the product developers in coordination with the United
States Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School foreign
disclosure authority. This product is releasable to students from
foreign countries on a case-by-case basis only.

TC 18-01 (ibid.) is a step by step guide of how to create, manipulate,
co-opt and make use of a countries population, persons of special
interest inside the country as well as expatriates, organizations inside
as well as outside the country, towards a subversion. Beginning with
manipulating dissent into demonstrations, the polarization of a
population, riots and armed insurgencies that require action by security
forces, and psychological warfare by means of media, step by step, in
logical sequence, towards a full scale war, based on humanitarian
principles and the pretext of bringing democracy and freedom.

In operations carried out during unconventional warfare special forces,
together with their civilian partners, operate with terms such as ”
Feasibility of United States Sponsorship”, and where sponsorship is not
feasible how to arrive at that point, “Physical and Environmental
Conditions” such as “Weakened or Unconsolidated Government or Occupying
Power” or how to weaken and sub-verse, “Will of the Population” or how
to identify active pro and anti government activism, discredit, weaken
provoke and assassinate pro government forces, and strengthen anti
government forces by means of training, organizing, financing, arming,
and if necessary direct military support in form of special operations
units on the ground.

TC 18-01 ( ibid.) explains step by step how a country is slowly
manipulated into a successful subversion, or post modern coup d´etat. To
study it along side a study of the last five years developments with
respect to Libya is a chilling lesson in modern history of warfare. To
study it along side a study of the ongoing events pertaining Syria is a
study in how the subversion operates, and eventually, how it can be
resisted.

The Little that is known about the known members of the National Syrian
Counsel is sufficient to document how the subtle preparations for a
later coup d´etat in Syria have been ongoing in University Institutes,
Foundations, Organizations gravitating around the rouge network with the
National Endowment for Democracy playing a pivotal role.

Yasser Tabbara

Yasser Tabbara – Elected Chairman of the National Counsel of Syria whose
supposed 150 – 200 members remain anonymous (16). Yasser Tabbara is the
co founder and Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago. It describes it self
as a “vibrant institution that continues fostering cutting-edge
professional activism” (17) Yasser Tabbara has a Bachelors Degree in
Political Science from the University of Illinois Chicago and a Juris
Doctor degree from DePaul University College of Law (ibid.). Yasser
Tabbara is also currently the Director of the Chapter Development at the
Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and serves as a board
member of the Arab-American bar Association, and the Muslim Educational
and Cultural Center of America (ibid). According to an anonymous
intelligence expert, CAIR and the Counsel on Arab-American Relations are
both deeply infiltrated, and in part co-operating with at least FBI and
CIA and many of it´s members have ties to the National Endowment for
Democracy.

Adib Shishkali

Adib Shishkali said according to NPR News (18), at the founding of the
National Counsel of Syria, that the reason why it took so long time to
form the counsel was to make sure that all were on board. If one has
understood the concepts in TC 18-01 (ibid.) then these words have a
special sound to them. Beside what he supposedly said in the presence of
NPR, it was impossible to find public information about “Adib
Shishkali”. But as often the case, as for instance in the case of
Abdelhakim Belhadj (19), criminals and mercenaries often use various
alias. What is common knowledge though, is that a man by the same name
was President of Syria and it´s Military Leader, with friendly relations
to the West,(20), and who was brought to his downfall by members of the
Syrian Communist Party and the Syrian Arab Socialist Baath Party. His
downfall prompted the beginning of the first CIA and MI6 subversion into
Syria (21) What better alias could there possibly be to express where
one is standing.

Ahmad Ramadan

Ahmad Ramadan, another opposition member said that the counsel would
form 10 bureaus, including a foreign relations office that would be
dedicated to “relaying the demands of the revolution, the people´s
requests to the outside world“. Ahmad Ramadan also demands that the
National Counsel of Syria should be recognized as Syria´s Sole
Representative. Also a quite typical strategy for democracy conscious
organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (22).
And that is about all that is publicly known about this gentleman who
would like to be one of Syria´s sole representatives.

Louay Safi

Louay Safi is a U.S. -based academic and the Founder and former Director
of the “Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy” (23). Louay Safi
serves as a Common Word Fellow of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center
for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. The multi
billionaire Saudi Arabian Prince heavily sponsors the Center. Safi also
serves as an associate faculty with the Indiana University – Purdue
University, Indianapolis, and a non-resident fellow with the Institute
for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) (24). The Saudi Sponsorship
of the Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and Louay Safi´s
ties to the center would sound harmless, less one knows the extend to
which the Saudi Arabian Royal Family is involved in sponsoring
terrorism. A Lloyd´s Insurance Syndicate is currently suing the Saudi
Government for the Saudi Interior Minister, Prince

Saudi Interior Minister Financing Al Qaeda

Naif bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud for damages related to his substantial
financing of Al Qaeda before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The
Lloyd´s 3500 Syndicate claims: “between 1998 and 2000, the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, through the SJRC, diverted more than 74 million USD to Al
Qaeda members and loyalists affiliated with SJRC bureaus. Throughout
this time, the Committee was under the supervision and control of Saudi
Interior Minister Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz“ (25). Russian and Syrian
Intelligence analysts have also recently found evidence, that the Al
Qaeda “Omar Brigade”, which is an expert assassination squad based in
Saudi Arabia had been detached to Syria. (26)

Close ties between the CISD and the National Endowment for Democracy are
not difficult to document. One good indicator is that key note speakers
at CISD conferences tend to be related to the NED (27). During the same
annual conference we have one working group on “Barriers for
Development” chaired by Joe Montville from Zbigniev Brzezinski´s Center
for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) (28); and again at a
conference by the United States Institute of Peace, we have speakers
from both the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the Center for
the Study of Islam and Democracy(29). It´s all one happy family of
strategists putchists and nation builders, with deep ties into the
blackest projects in the intelligence community, with Louay Safi playing
a central role in the subversion of Syria.

Jamal Al-Wadi Daraa

Jamal Al-Wadi is an other of the men who met in Istanbul and “demand to
be respected as the sole representatives of Syria“. All that is publicly
known about Jamal Al-Wadi is that he is from the Syrian city of Daraa
and that he spoke at the Istanbul Conference (30). A Russian
Intelligence expert who wants to remain anonymous with respect to this
informations informed the author of this article that Mr. Al-Wadi is a
member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Radwan Ziadh

Radwan Ziadh is an “exiled” dissident, meaning he is an expatriate from
Syria resident in the U.S.A. He is a former Reagan Fascell Fellow (31)
at the National Endowment for Democracy NED. As published in Democracy
Digest, Radwan Ziadh is calling for a “No Fly Zone” over Syria, and one
of those counsel members who see a Libya like Scenaria develop in Syria
(32). Not surprisingly, Radwan Ziadh is also the Head of the Washington
-based Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies, which has
close ties to Zbigniew Brzezinski´s Center for Strategic and
International Studies. Ziadh is actively promoting the psychological
warfare narrative that the “Syrian Regime has Killed over 3.000 innocent
people” (33). Radwan Ziadh´s biography makes interesting reading for any
one interested in how and where U.S. Intelligence Networks, potential
candidates to be used in a coup d´etat and The Deep State interface (34).

Abdul Basit Sida is another enigma among the counsel members. Besides
the fact that he is mentioned for taking part in the founding of the
national Counsel of Syria, nothing is known about him (35).

Hasan Shalabi. Though nothing is mentioned in mainstream media that
could be used to positively identify him as such, there is a high
likelihood for that the Hasan Shalabi that took part in the founding of
the counsel, is identical with Dr. Hasan Shalabi who has founded and
since been the President of The Islamic University in Beiruth (36). It
could be a coincident, but is Iran, like in the case with Libya,
prepared to stab Syria in it´s back by seizing the opportunity to
transform the Socialist Syria into an Islamic Republic(37).

No Information could be found on two other founding members of the
National Counsel of Syria, Riyad Shakfi and Abdulahat Satuf. E-mails
sent to known members of the National Counsel of Syria as well as to the
e-mail address provided at the counsels “homepage” which is worth an
analysis on it´s own, asking for information about the counsels
membership as well as political program remain unanswered until this day.

The Homepage of the National Counsel of Syria is hosted by “Reconpress”
which according to an anonymous Russian Intelligence Analyst who is
known to the author of this article, a front company for both CIA and
DIA (38). Besides hosting the website of the National Counsel of Syria
(39)who chose the much telling e-mail address ” command@nationalcounsilofsyria.com ” (ibid.), it also hosts such
illustrious websites as that of the 27th Marines blogg (ibid.), and
other curiosities.

What is important how ever, is that the website of the National Counsel
of Syria is calling for a No Fly Zone and foreign intervention, while
publishing maps with outdated positions of Syrian Air Defense Structures
(40). Most likely to impress, though there is no doubt that non of the
counsels members would hesitate to sale real intelligence to their
handlers if they had access to new maps.

While researching for this article, Russia and China, whose diplomatic
integrity with respect to Syria is highly questionable (41) cast a veto
on U.N. Sanctions against Syria. Russian and Chinese diplomacy at the
U.N. has prevented a new Humanitarian War on Syria (42) for the time
being; But historical precedence about cases of Subversion and
Insurgencies where the National Endowment for Democracy, and the rouge
networks around Brzezinski, Kissinger et al. are involved, is pointing
in one direction only:

” Follow the Step by Step Plans of the United States Manuals on
Unconventional Warfare, to predict the development on the ground in the
Syrian Arab Republic”. (43)

About Me

'Mission statement'.
I am convinced that jewish individuals and groups have an enormous influence on the world. The MSM are, for almost all people, the only source of information, and these are largely controlled by jewish people.
So there is a huge under-reporting on jewish influence in the world.
I see it as my mission to try to close this gap. To quote Henry Ford: "Corral the 50 wealthiest jews and there will be no wars." `(Thomas Friedman wrote the same in Haaretz, about the war against Iraq! See yellow marked area, blog 573)
If that is true, my mission must be very beneficial to humanity.